Syria needs more BRICS assistance

BRICS collectively can play an effective mediator in Syria. Source: Reuters

This year, countries from the grouping have contributed $9.3 million to UN and other aid organisations as humanitarian assistance.

In a statement in Beirut this week, the US
Assistant Secretary of for Population, Refugees, and Migration, Anne C. Richard
called on the BRICS to increase humanitarian aid in Syria. It is not often that
the US calls on the grouping to support humanitarian work in Syria. The speech
also has an underlying assumption: BRICS has emerged one of the most powerful
organisations in the world scene which cannot be ignored.

The Syrian crisis over the past two years has
emerged as one of the worst humanitarian disasters. The recent United Nations
estimate puts the death toll at 93,000. About four million people are displaced
internally, while about 1.7 million people are displaced as refugees in
Lebanon, Jordan and other neighbouring countries. The BRICS countries this year
have contributed $9.3 million to UN and other aid organizations as humanitarian
assistance. As the violent conflict still thrives, the catastrophe has assumed
greater proportions with each passing day. The UN has developed an ambitious
plan which would likely cost about $5 billion for the second half of this year
for humanitarian purposes in the war ravaged country.

BRICS as a group has adopted a constructive
approach to the Syrian crisis. The New Delhi summit in 2012 expressed concern
“at the current situation in Syria and called for an immediate end to all
violence and violations of human rights in that country.” It further argued,
“Global interests would best be served by dealing with the crisis through
peaceful means that encourage broad national dialogues that reflect the
legitimate aspirations of all sections of Syrian society and respect Syrian
independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty.” The Durban summit in
March 2013 reiterated the spirit of the Delhi summit. It was more vocal and active
in this regard as the joint statement devoted significant part to Syria. This
was partly caused by the appeal of the Syrian government to the group to
intervene in the conflict. The summit declaration expressed “deep concern with
the deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation in Syria,” and
called for a “Syrian-led political process leading to a transition (that) can
be achieved only through broad national dialogue that meets the legitimate
aspirations of all sections of Syrian society and respect for Syrian
independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty as expressed by the Geneva
Joint Communiqué and appropriate UNSC resolutions.”

The rising economic clout of the grouping is
certainly an attraction. While some European countries are still undergoing a financial
crisis, BRICS has managed to stay ahead of the global crisis. This was
reflected in the statement of Anne Richard. She stated, “Traditional donors in
Europe feel the weight of economic problems. We are in fact approaching ... the
BRICS and Gulf countries.” Richard as the official for refugees appeared to
speak in a non-partisan way when she urged for cooperation from all countries
including the neighbours of Syria in addressing the humanitarian crisis. She
argued, “Without additional help the communities that are hosting these
refugees will ... really become strained and this will lead to tensions.”

Peace in Syria is not a casual requirement but
an immediate imperative which cannot be stalled longer and made subject to politics
among powers involved in the region. The recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland
harped on a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The signs on the ground,
however, are not that propitious as there is a feeling that the conflict will
be further protracted with the supply of weapons and radical elements. The
proposed peace conference, originally planned to be held in June, hangs in
limbo as the stakeholders fail to evolve a consensus on the modalities of such
a conference.

Related:

BRICS collectively can play an effective
mediator in Syria. Besides contributing to humanitarian assistance in a way
suitable to its objectives, it can entice other powers including the US, UK and
EU engaged in the crisis to develop consensus to address the crisis in a
non-zero sum game framework. A first step in this regard will be putting the
common people of Syria before any sectarian or a particular national or
ideological goal in any solution framework.

The Syrian crisis is getting murkier by each
passing day. Supplying weapons whether to Assad or to his opponents is not
going to address the real concerns. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the
German parliament recently that the risks of arming the militants in Syria
“would be incalculable.” She further stated that “Germany will under no
circumstances send weapons to Syria - a country in civil war - no matter how
other countries deal with the arms embargo.” Perhaps the BRICS leaders will not
disagree with Merkel particularly on this point that infusion of arms is not
going to help resolve the conflict. The BRICS countries too have no fixation
with a particular leader or faction, as emphasised by the group’s leaders on
many occasions, in the conflict but with a peaceful resolution led by the
Syrian people themselves. Russian President, Vladimir Putin stated in a recent
interview, “We’re not advocates of the current Syrian government or the
country’s current president, Bashar al-Assad.”
It is time that BRICS must gear its diplomatic mechanism to checkmate
humanitarian disaster and address conflict in Syria effectively.

Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an Indian
commentator. His areas of interests include conflict, terrorism, peace and
development, Kashmir, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics.